4 



F 89 
.P9 C8 
Copy 1 



ANCIENT DOCUMENTS 



RELATIVE TO THE 



©1l® ©mi^^^ffiim^, 



WITH SOME 



REMARKS 



ON THE 



©?s2i?s@srs 



MESSRS. HUNTER AND GREENE, 

COUNSEL EMPLOYED BY THE TOWN TO EXAMINE 
THE SAME. 

n 



HERALD OFFICE. 



1829. 



its clearness and candor, and its comprehensive 
brevity, cannot but recommend it to those whose 
duty it is to contend with his clients. 

The opinion of Mr. Greene is not so unobjection- 
able. But it becomes not me to condemn it ; nev- 
ertheless I may be permitted to point out some of 
its most apparent errors. 

It appears to me that Mr. Greene, in the outset, 
fldls into a great error in supposing that the copy, 
granted by Shadrach Manton, in 1667, of the grant 
of 1646, was a " copy from the record." This was 
not the fact. Shadrach Manton did not certify it 
to be a true copy from the record ; his certificate 
is only " copied this 4th of January, 1667," and 
this same certificate is attached to the " articles of 
agreement." Neither is certified to be a true 
copy from the record, nor is there a particle of evi- 
dence to show that either were ever recorded in 
the " Town's Book ;" nor is there a particle of ev- 
idence that the grant of 1646, of the "val- 
ley," was ever made to John Smith, except from 
what may be gathered from the grant of 1673, 
which is recorded in that book. In this grant sev- 
eral returns are mentioned, and among them, one 
of " ten acres, more or less, at or about the place 
where the mill now standeth," which was made 
about the year 1647. This, no doubt, has refer- 
ence to the grant of 1646, if it was made in that 
year. But is it not very singular indeed, if the 
articles of agreement of 1649 were on record in 
1673, or had been deemed executed and binding, 
that mention should not have been made of them 
by the " men of Providence," in their grant of 
that year ; for, let it be remembered, this was 
before the town w^as burnt, and the consequent 
destruction of many of the records. This was an 
open town-meeting ; a great many returns were 



brought in to be recorded, and among them the ten 
acres where the mill stood ; and the very condi- 
tion named, upon which the grant was made, viz. 
*' for building a mill, as witness do testify," and 
moreover only six years after the copy of them 
had been made by Shadrach 31anton, when the 
fact, if these articles of agreement had been bind- 
ing and obligatory, must have been fresh in the 
minds of the proprietors — I say, therefore, is it not 
extremely singular that no mention should be 
made of them in their grant at that time, particu- 
larly b}' the witnesses present, who testified as to 
the building of the mill ? The total absence of all 
this in that grant, is most conclusive evidence that 
in 1673 the articles of agreement were not deemed 
executed and binding. [This fact will also appear 
by other evidence, when I come to consider an- 
other point in the case.] For how natural it would 
have been, in referring to the "ten acres where 
the mill now standeth," to have also referred to 
the articles of agreement, as a part of the original 
contract, if such had been the fact. 

But the grant by the " men of Providence," in 
1673, proves conclusively another very important 
fact, although such proof might be inferred from 
other circumstances. It proves not oniy the con- 
dition upon which the grant was made, but shows, 
conclusively, that the condition had been perform- 
ed by the Smiths; and hence, forever afterwards, 
the Smiths were to hold the granted premises 
"without let, hindrance or molestation." What 
other construction can be given to such sweeping- 
words? The grant refers to the original survey, 
made by Chad Brown, about 1647, and the place 
where, to wit, "where the mill now standeth;" 
and, finally, for what it was made, to wit, for 
•' building a mill." Here is the original grant, the 



6 

condition and performance all distinctly admitted, 
in language that cannot be misunderstood ; nay 
not only admitted, hut proved, for it seems witness 
were called to testify to the fact — hence the Smiths 
were to hold ever afterwards free from all condi- 
tions. The grant, therefore, of 1673, is not so 
much, properly speaking, an " enlargement" of the 
condition, as observed by Mr. Hunter, as it is proof 
that the condition had been performed ; whether 
the one or the other, however, it is sufficient to 
show that there is, noAV, no condition attached to 
the premises. 

It is true the articles of 1649, as "copied" by 
Shadrach Manton, in 1667, were recorded in the 
" State Book," by Richard Ward, recorder, but at 
whose request, or for what purpose, does not ap- 
pear; but one thing is certain, it could not have 
been done in consequence of the law or order of 
1644, as contended by Mr. Greene, for they were 
not recorded by Mr. Ward until about 1727, that 
is, 78 years after they appear to have been made, 
and 60 years after they were copied by Shadrach 
Manton; and because, in 1714, the General As- 
sembly passed an act requiring "all deeds and con- 
veyances of houses, lands, &c. to be registered in 
the registry of the totvn where such houses and 
lands do lie :" and by this act it was further pro- 
vided, that, unless this was done, no deed or con- 
veyance should be "good or eifectual." The 
record, therefore, made by Richard Ward, who 
was not a town register, in 1727, was a mere nulli- 
ty, binding upon no one. In point of fact, there- 
fore, there is no legal record extant of the articles 
of agreement, and it is believed, for the best of all 
reasons, they were never executed, never deemed 
obligatory, and, therefore, never designed to be re- 
corded any ivhere by the original parties. 



I will now venture to differ in another point from 
Mr. Greene. He seems to think that "sturdy 
farmers" are not to be bound by the rules of the 
common law ; and, therefore, when they made a 
grant to John Smith, of land to "build a mill," it 
was intended that the mill should always be kept 
in repair, and relies on the " circumstances" of the 
times for this construction. Waiving for a mo- 
ment the rules of the common law, in regard to the 
construction of "conditions," let us, as Mr. G. says, 
" consider the circumstances in which the parties 
were placed, and the object of the town" in mak- 
ing this grant. 

This town was settled in 1636, by one hundred 
and one proprietors, among whom were, or came 
shortly afterwards, John Smith and his son John, 
and then the only mill-wrights in the colony. — 
John Smith, Sen. had already built his house in 
the "valley," on the banks of the Moshassuck riv- 
er, and it might be with the view to improve the 
advantages of this stream, should inducements be 
offered. In 1646 or 47, the proprietors did of- 
fer the land in case he would " set up a mill." — 
The offer was accepted and the mill built. Now 
let us consider the value of the land and the value 
of a corn mill, at that time, and attempt an estimate 
of each. Let us see whether the building or set- 
ting it up, only, was not, under all circumstances, 
a full and adequate compensation for the grant. 

What was ten acres of land, in 1646, worth — 
in the infancy of the colony and among the Indians 
— at a time, too, when, if history be correct, men 
were obliged to carry their fire-arms afield to their 
work, to defend themselves, not only against the 
beasts of the forest but the savage foe ? At a period 
when scarcely a night passed but the Indian whoop 
awaked its slumbers, for even at that time the In- 



tliaiis had began to be affected with that deadly ha- 
tred to the English, which, in a few years after, 
broke into an exterminating war, nor ended in the 
conflagration of the whole town. In this calamity 
the town-clerk's house was burnt, but, as if a spe- 
cial providence then interfered for the benefit of 
the widow and flitherless of future generations, the 
" town book," which contains the important record 
of the grant of 1673, escaped the conflagration ! — 
The record of this grant briefly tells the whole 
story of the mill, and, from that time to the present, 
it has literally been the " ark" containing the cove- 
nants of the parties. But to return. Under the cir- 
cumstances attendant on the first settlement of the 
colony, I ask what were ten acres of land worth? 
A " few English shillings per acre ?" No — not more 
than ten acres would now be worth in the wilds of 
Missouri, beyond the Rocky Mountains ! But, on 
the other hand, what was a corn mill worth, to a 
hundred families who were obliged to pound their 
grain in mortars into meal? It was invaluable, 
and fearlessly I assert, that setting one up was an 
accommodation to the first settlers of more value, 
beyond all comparison, than the land given for 
that object. But, in addition to this, could it be 
expected, at that time, that any capitalist would be 
willing to invest his money in such an uncertain 
business ; for it w ill not be pretended that the cus- 
tom of a hundred families would of itself have been 
a sufficient inducement for any prudent individual 
to have built a mill ? Hence the ofler was made. 
The grant was made to Smith to induce him to 
build a mill, and never was intended to be shackled 
with a condition for such a paltry consideration, to 
keep the mill in repair. The very circumstances, 
upon which Mr. Greene relies, show this demon- 
stratively to have been the fact. 



9 

But it is believed that no circumstances in a 
court of law will or can control express agreements 
or grants, whether made with " sturdy farmers" or 
others. In doubtful cases usage is admitted to ex- 
plain, but where there is no ambiguity, never. In 
the construction, therefore, which is to be given to 
the grant of 1646, we must be governed, as in all 
similar cases, by the rules of the common law. — 
Now let us enquire what the common law is, at 
the same time admitting that there was a condition 
attached to the original grant. 

It is a general rule of law, (Touchstone, p. 30,) 
that conditions attached to estates are to be con- 
strued strictly, and " shall not be extended beyond 
their words, unless in some special cases;" and yet, 
with regard to the grant of 1646, it is attempted to 
be shown by Mr. Greene, that the words "to 
build," are to be construed " to keep up," and that 
the words " to set up," signify " to keep in re- 
pair." Or, in other words, he attempts to convert 
what was a condition precedent into a condition 
subsequent ; and, instead of making the estate to 
depend upon the condition expressed in the grant, 
without the least ambiguity, to depend upon a con- 
dition not expressed, which, indeed, could not be 
implied, from any words used in the grant, without 
murdering the King's English. (Reader, if you 
think this too strong language, look at the grants 
of 1646 and 1673, in the appendix, and judge for 
yourself.) And this, too, when it can be shown, 
when it is shown, under the circumstances of the 
case, that such a construction would have worked 
manifest injustice to the grantees. The condition 
attached to the original grant was a condition pre- 
cedent, and, Avhen it was performed, the estate was 
free ; and so the " men of Providence" understood 



10 

it in 1673, when they confirmed the estate to John 
Smith, the son of the original grantee. 

I have observed, that, in doubtful cases, usage 
may be admitted to explain ; but, where there is 
no ambiguity in the original grant, never. Upon 
this point I adopt the principle laid down in Cor- 
telyou vs. Van Brundt, (2d Johnson, 357.) The 
principle here decided is, "that evidence of usage 
is inadmissible to explain the language of a deed, 
not ambiguous or equivocal." I am willing to rest 
the whole cause upon this point, and submit the 
question, whether there is the least ambiguity in 
the language of the above-mentioned grants. In- 
deed, the words are so plain, simple and unequivo- 
cal, that it would much puzzle even a clear head- 
ed lawyer to make them appear doubtful. Other 
cases could be cited, but it seems superfluous to 
prove what must always be the conclusion of com- 
mon sense. It is the office of usage to explain am- 
biguity, but never to control perspicuity. What 
is translucent admits of no explanation. 

I will now notice another extraordinary position 
assumed by Mr. Greene. He advances a doctrine 
which, if true, would put an end to all mutual con- 
fidence. He observes — "Suppose the town had 
broken their part of the agreement, this could be 
no bar to the action against the Smiths, for a viola- 
tion of their part of the agreement." For a mo- 
ment waiving all objections to the agreement, and 
supposing it now to be valid, let us see what would 
be the condition of the parties if this doctrine were 
true. The town on their part agreed, 1st, that the 
Smiths should "have, hold and enjoy the said mill, 
with its rights and privileges, for their proper use 
and benefit ;" 2d, " that the water course in said 
liver shall not be stopped by us or our survivors. 



11 

whereby said mill shall be molested in its constant 
course;" 3c\, "that no corn mill shall be built with- 
in the boundaries or limits of said plantation, to be 
authorized or allowed of by us, so long" as said 
mill should be kept up by the Smiths, &c. Now, 
if Mr. G's doctrine is correct, the town could have 
diverted the water from its course ; for, at that 
time, they had the sovereign control of the river, 
and yet have sustained a suit against the Smiths for 
not keeping up the mill ; or, in other words, the 
town could have deprived the Smiths of the means 
of keeping up the mill, and then been able to have 
sustained a suit against them for not keeping it up, 
and the only satisfaction the Smiths could have, 
would be to bring a suit against the tov/n ! Ac- 
cording to Mr. Greene, it seems the instrument 
contained provisions for a mutuaHhj of laiosuits, but 
no mutuality of covenants — a good doctrine for the 
profession, but death to the community ! I ask any 
intelligent law} er for an}' other correct legal in- 
ference. 

But it is not true, as Mr. G. saj^s, that "these 
covenants" in the instrument "are independent." 
If the instrument itself did not declare the fact, 
their very nature would show that they were mu- 
tual, and dependant on each other. It could not 
be understood that the town could divert the wa- 
ter course, allow other mills to be built, and even 
deprive them of all benefit and profit of the mill, 
and then be able to sustain a suit for not keeping 
it up. 

But the articles of agreement themselves show, 
that these covenants were mutual, and so intended. 
The words of the agreement are—" We, the said 
town, together with the said Alice and John, do 
mutually agree and covenant, concerning the mill, 
as followeth." That there may be independent 



covenants, I am willing to admit ; but, certainly, 
no Court would ever decide those covenants to be 
independent which, from their very nature, ought 
to be mutual. The fact is, as justly observed by 
JMr. Hunter, " this agreement wants the essence of 
a contract, reciprocity.'*'* Though it might have 
been reciprocal once, it cannot be so now. Events, 
physical, moral and political, conspire to prevent 
it. It would be the height of injustice, as well as 
chimerical, for the town now to undertake to exact 
obedience to this agreement, when, as Mr. Greene 
himself would acknowledge, the Smiths could not 
exact obedience from the town even if the town felt 
a willingness to obey. It is beyond their power. It 
is not in the power of the town now to control the 
waters of the Moshassuck river : they parted with 
that power on the adoption of the charter. If there 
is any sovereignty that pan now control them, it is 
the sovereignty of the State ; and even so far as 
private interest is concerned, it is beyond the 
reach of this power to control them, without pro- 
viding the means of remuneration. 

I will now consider another objection to this 
agreement, growing out of the fact that it was made 
by administrators. This is equally fatal. An ad- 
ministrator has no authority to enter into covenants 
binding the heir. Upon what authority Mr. G. 
makes the assertion, that, at the period of this agree- 
ment, an administrator, as such, in Rhode-Island, 
could represent or have any control over the fee of 
the real estate of the intestate, I am at a loss to de- 
termine ; yet this he is compelled to do in order 
to sustain the validity of this agreement. 

I had always thought that Rhode-Island was, not 
only an English colony, its inhabitants subjects of 
the King of England, and owing allegiance to him, 
but that the laws of his realm were their laws, at 



13 

least during that period which preceded the char- 
ters. Such has been my understanding with re- 
gard to the laws, and such I believe the under- 
standing, generally. Indeed, JMr. Greene himself 
virtually admits this, by making John Smith "heir 
at law" of his father. By what rule of descent was 
he heir at law, unless by the English? If I am 
correct, then, the laws which defined the duty and 
powers, and which were in force in England, re- 
specting administrators, were in force in this colo- 
ny. If this was not the fact, it is incumbent on Mr. 
G. to point out the difference. I have in vain, my- 
self, looked for any order or law among tlie records 
of the monthly court meetings of the proprietors, 
anterior to the charter, altering the law of England 
in this respect, but have found jvoxe. But I have 
found a law that was passed at the first session of 
the General Assembly, after the charter of Charles, 
in March, 16G3, and was the fifth in order that was 
passed,* entitled " an act for the probate of wills, 
and granting of administrations." This law gives 
the town-councils power, as judges of prcbate, "to 
take the probate of wills and testaments, and grant 
administrations, and all other matters relating there- 
to ; and to act and to do, as, by the laivs of England 
and of his Majesty's colony, doth belong to the said 
office." Now I ask, with this law before him, and 
ill the absence of all others to contradict it, what 
intelligent lawyer would hazard his reputation by 
asserting, that the administrator " represented the 
fee?" And how Mr. Greene, with all his good 
sense, should be caught straggling in such a strange 
path in search after law — how he could advocate 

*Tl)e first act regulated tlie elections ; the second declared the 
rights and privileoes ; tiie third was to prevent clandestine pur- 
chases of the Indians : the fourth created a puhlic seal of the 
colony. 



14 

a principle, which could not be tolerated a moment 
by any court, is to me unaccountable. Certainly 
Mr. Greene needs not to be told that the duties 
and powers of an administrator are clearly defined, 
and, when he transcends his o^da/ authority, his 
acts are as void as a judgment of a court transcend- 
ing its jurisdiction. The administrator, by our 
laws, is merely a representative of the personal 
property ; he cannot even receive the rents and 
profits of the real estate, much less bind the fee. 
Except under certain circumstances the law makes 
him an agent to sell it. An administrator in Eng- 
land (Godolphin, p. 118,) is an accountable com- 
missioner, authorized by the appointment of the 
ordinary for the disposal of the goods of an intes- 
tate. He is the same in Rhode-Island, except as 
above mentioned. How, then, could such an offi- 
cer encumber the heir's estate by covenants'? I 
ask, wh'fere is the power given to the administrator 
to make that a trust estate in the heir, which was 
not so in the ancestor? And still more strange 
and absurd it would be, if he could attach a condi- 
tion to the inheritance, inconsistent with the grant 
to the ancestor. The fact, that John Smith was 
the heir at law as well as administrator at the pe- 
riod of this agreement, cannot vary the result, as 
Mr. Greene supposes; for this agreement, if made 
at all, was made as administrator. It is binding, 
therefore, only so far forth as he had power as ad- 
ministrator; and if he and the widow, in their of- 
ficial capacity, had no power to bind the heir, then 
was their agreement null and void. It cannot be 
true that these administrators, acting officially, could 
unite the " rights of administrator and heir." — 
Upon this point I unite in opinion with Mr. Hun- 
ter, entirely. 

But I come now to ask of Mr. Greene a solution 



15 

of a still more sturdy difficulty, with regard to this 
agreement. The argument is in rem. Whence 
the necessity of these articles of agreement at 
all, if the original grant was made upon the 
"condition" that the mill should always be kept in 
repair? Certainly such a condition, running al- 
ways with the possession, would be the best guar- 
anty to the town for that purpose ; far better than 
any covenants. Can we suppose that the town 
could ask for better security than a condition, 
which would work a forfeiture of the mill itself, in 
case of its violation? Why, then, should the ad- 
ministrator be "assayed," time after time, to enter 
into this agreement? I venture to affirm, that 
common sense can give but one answer. It was 
because no such condition was attached to the 
original grant, and the " sturdy farmers" well 
knew it ; and hence their endeavors to persuade 
the widow and her son to fenter into this agreement, 
which would have the effect, in some measure, of 
such a condition. But it is needless to pursue this 
point, and I should not have said one half so much 
about this agreement, if Mr. Greene and the i^rist- 
milUies in town had not relied so much upon it. — 
It was never executed, nor was it ever recorded ; 
and the only evidence of its existence, is what pur- 
ports to be a covy, which is found recorded in the 
"State Book," by Richard Ward, recorder; at a 
time when the record in that book of the original 
agreement \i^e\^, even if it had been duly executed, 
would have been null .md void, so far forth as it af- 
fected the reality, it being then the law of the 
State, that ail conveyances affecting real estate 
should be recorded in the "registry of the town," 
in which such lands were located. 

Before, however, I dismiss this point, I must 
mention one other fact, which does appear of re- 



10 

cord, and which is equally conclusive against the 
validity of tliis agreement. I have observed that 
this agreement was never executed, but the fact 
which I will now mention will prove that it was 
PEJECTED by Alice Smith. This is proved by a 
vote of the town, on the IDth of the 3d month, 1649. 
The vote is in these words : — " Upon the return of 
an answer from widow Smith, it is ordered, that 
Robert Williams, Thomas Joanes, Hugh Bewit 
and Gregory Dexter, shall once more assay to 
make an agreement with the said widow Smith, 
about former and latter motions and propositions 
about the mill, and prepare an answer by the next 
Court." The language of this vote is very partic- 
ular, and full of meaning. The words are — upon 
the return of '•'an atiswef^ the committee ^^ once 
more^'' &c. This shows most conclusively that the 
widow had been once assayed, and had returned 
an answer that she refused her assent. Upon no 
other construction can you give any meaning to 
these words. It is indeed so plain, that the most 
sceptical gristmillite, it appears to me, cannot doubt. 
The committee were ordered to make a report at 
the next court. No report was made, and, from 
that day, this agreement lay unnoticed and almost 
unknown, buried in the rubbish of the town-clerk's 
office, until it was dug up by Shadrach Manton, 
and "coppied"in l(>tJ7. From that time it slept 
again until 1727, when it was recorded in the 
*' State Book ;" nor do we hear of it again until 
1764, in the stormy political times of " VVard and 
Hopkins," when Elisha Brown, who w^as, or had 
been about that period, Lieutenant-Governor un- 
der Ward, and, of course, as unpopular in Provi- 
dence as a tory of the Revolution, appeared, as 
large as life, in open town- meeting, and made prom- 
ises which, in law, he was not bound to make, nor 



17 

which could be binding on the heir at law of his 
wite, in whom the fee was, even if they were on 
him, as I will now attempt to show. 

Mr. Greene seems to think that the mill belong- 
ed to Elisha Brown, at that time, in fee, and, there- 
fore, thinks it incredible that he wotdd have then 
"charged his estate with a condition from which it 
was then free." Now, whatever Elisha Brown 
did, or intended to do, can have nothing to do with 
the point in dispute, for the best of ali reasons — 
Elisha Brown, himself, had nothing to do with it ; 
he was merely a life tenant of a part of the mill. — 
The fee was in his eldest son, the heir at law of his 
wife, then deceased, from whom the inheritance 
descended. Whatever acknowledgments he made, 
therefore, or whatever he promised to do in regard 
to the mill, was totally null and void, at least be- 
yond his own interest. He could no more have 
charged the fee of the heir with his own act, than 
he could have transferred the title by his deed poll. 
But I will go further. The acts of Elisha Brown, 
in that town-meeting, would not have bound even 
his own estate, if, in point of law, it had not been 
bound before ; and I am supported by the princi- 
ple decided in More vs. Foley, (6 Vessey, Jr.) In 
this case it was maintained, that "it cannot be a 
legal mode of construction, that a party who has 
done an act which he is not bound to do, or from a 
mistake, should therefore be bound forever, with- 
out the power of retreating." Suppose Elisha 
Brbwn did, not only promise the town, but actually 
* save the water for his mill,' thinking he was bound 
in law so to do. Is this mistake of the law forever 
to cut off all retreat, and forever to charge his es- 
tate with a condition, with which it was not charga- 
ble before? It cannot be pretended. 

Equally mistaken is Mr. Greene in supposing- 
3 



18 

"a grist-mill has always been kept there, upon the 
ground of a claim of the town, and admitted by the 
Smiths." When did the tow7i ever make a "claim" 
to that mill before'? It is true that in 1649, one 

HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN YEARS BEFORE, the pro- 
prietors "assayed" to make an agreement with Al- 
ice Smith, but failed ; but from that time to Eli- 
sha Brown's appearance in town-meeting, there is 
not a particle of evidence on record to show, that 
the town or proprietors ever made any claim. In- 
deed, the proprietors have never made any claim 
since they were repulsed by Alice Smith! It is 
true a grist-mill has always been kept there ; but 
it can be demonstrated that it always has been for 
the interests of the proprietors to have one there : 
and I ask, how can that act be construed into an 
acquiescence which was for the interests of the 
parties to do. If there is any argument to be 
drawn from acquiescence, it ought to be shown that 
such acquiescence was adverse to such interests. — 
If A comes into my yard, and draws water from my 
well for twenty years, does it follow that my ac- 
quiescence deprives me of the control over the 
well? Can I not discontinue the well, if necessa- 
ry to my estate? Can such an acquiescence be 
construed into the admission of claim? Of such a 
claim, too, as to deprive me of the power of my own 
well ? That the inhabitants of the town had a 
right to carry their corn to mill, and to have it 
ground, I admit, so long as a mill was there; but 
where is the contract or law compelling the pro- 
prietors to keep a mill there for their accommoda- 
tion, when it would have been for the interests of 
the proprietors to have removed it? 

Nor is it true that the claim of the town has ever 
been admitted by the Smiths ; they have uniform- 
ly denied it, from the days of Alice Smith, in 1649„, 



19 

to the present hour, the promises of Elisha Brown 
being considered null and void, as to any binding 
effect upon the heir or owner. There is not a par- 
ticle of evidence that any owner ever promised to 
do, or ever did any act by which the town could 
claim, or had a right in justice to claim, any con- 
trol whatever over that mill. Their claim is whol- 
ly " in nubibus" — nor has it ever been seen except 
by Mr. Greene, and in some very extraordinary 
reports of the town's committees at various times, 
which, however, cannot affect the legal rights of 
the parties. 

I now approach the most important question in 
the cause, at least as respects the right of the town ; 
a question upon which Mr. Greene himself, with 
all his antiquarian knowledge, is candid enough to 
confess he entertains some doubt. Although he is 
very decided in every thing else, in direct opposi- 
tion to Mr. Hunter; indeed, his whole opinion 
seems intended as an answer to Mr. Hunter, rather 
than a separate, judicial opinion, as was contem- 
plated by the town : yet when he comes to the 
question, whether the town of Providence, in its 
corporate capacity, or the original proprietors of 
the Grand Purchase, have now this lien upon the 
mill estate, he confesses there is " some doubt upon 
the claim of the town." It seems rather an unfor- 
tunate circumstance that, after having taken so 
much pains to erect such a convenient edifice for 
the " sturdy farmers" of Rhode-Island, he should, 
all at once, just as the building was finished, with 
his own hands knock away the foundation upon 
which it stood. Yet such is the fact, as will now 
be shown. 

Mr. Hunter's opinion upon this point is not on- 
ly very clear and decisive, but it happens to be in 
perfect unison with the opinion of some of the most 



20 

able Counsel of Massachusetts, in strictly an anal- 
offous case, some of the facts of which I will men- 
tion. 

Soon after the first settlement of the town of 
Wrentham, the original proprietors of that town 
before its incorporation by the General Court, 
made a grant to A of a mill privilege and a tract of 
land, "so long as he should keep up a grist mill." 
It will be observed that these words are very dif- 
ferent from those used in the grant to John Smith, 
although here it might be deemed doubtful wheth- 
er the writ, De Reparatione Facicnda, could be sus- 
tained. Under this grant A entered, and his 
heirs and assigns maintained a grist-mill until with- 
in a few years, when, under the influence of the 
American system, it was razed to the ground, and 
a cotton factory erected on its ruins. The town 
had a special town-meeting upon the subject, and 
passed a vote appointing a committee, instructing 
them to consult with counsel relative to the claim 
of the town. Some of the most able counsel in the 
State were consulted, who came to the conclusion, 
that the totvn could not enforce the contract. If it 
could be enforced at all, it must be done by the 
proprietors who were the grantors. Such was the 
decision of counsel in Massachusetts. 

In Rhode-Island, the proprietary rights have 
been protected by a special law. The act of 1682 
was enacted expressly for this purpose, and its pro- 
visions are as broad as the exigency of their case 
required. It legalized, under the provisions of the 
charter, the Indian title, and, consequently, all ti- 
tles under that. The original proprietors and pur- 
chasers from the Indians in the several towns, and 
each and every of them, were quieted in their 
respective purchases; were also 'declared to be a 
distinct and separate body from the towns, and, as 



21 

such, authorized to appoint " all such officers as 
they should judge needful and convenient" for the 
transacting of their business : empoAvered to keep 
separate records, and, indeed, to a limited extent, 
they were in substance a body corporate, and had 
an individuality of corporate existence, as much so 
as the towns themselves. U so, I would ssk, how 
could the rights of this body ever enure to the 
towns without a grant from them? By way of fa- 
miliar illustration I might ask, how could the corpo- 
tion of the Merchants Bank enforce a contract 
made by A with the Providence Bank, unless au- 
thorized by express authority ? Yet these two 
bodies are not more distinct in law than the bodies 
of the original proprietors and the towns. If, there- 
fore, John Smith did make a contract with the pro- 
prietors, what is that to the town? By what au- 
thority can the town enforce that contract'? What 
kind of action could be maintained? Can A re- 
cover damages for a breach of a covenant made 
between B and C? Where is the law of the State 
which makes these two distinct bodies but one? — 
Where is the act oi' union, since their divorcement 
and separate maintenance in 1682? 

What defect there was in the Indian title, it is 
not necessary to enquire. If there was any, it was 
cured by the charter of Charles, or by the acts 
passed in pursuance of that charter. But, whether 
good or bad, the towns have nothing to do with it. 
They were no parties to those purchases ; indeed, 
they had no legal existence at the time. In 1646 
the town of Providence had no corporate existence. 
By what rule of law, then, can this town claim to 
be a party to a contract made before its corporate 
birth? 

Nor will it mend the matter by saying the town 
is a trustee, a depositary of rights for the benefit of 



22 

its inhabitants. A trustee must be in existence at 
the time the trust is created, or the grant is void. — 
According to Mr. Greene's own showing, there- 
fore, this contract was executed by John Smith 
with no body ; for, at that time, there was no legal 
town. Indeed, his whole argument on this point 
resolves itself into this absurdity : In 1646 John 
Smith made a contract with Mr. JVo-body, trustee 
to Every body ; hence Every-body has a right to 
look to JS*o-body for execution of the trust ! Que. 
Can any body derive much benefit from such a 
contract ? 

I come, now, to another part of the cause, grow- 
ing out of the proceedings of the canal corporation. 
Allowing the town had an interest in the mill, an- 
terior to the location of the canal, are they not con- 
cluded by their own acts since the location was 
made? 

The Blackstone Canal charter was granted in 
June, 1823. The location of the canal through 
the old grist-mill, was returned to the November 
term of the Court of Common Pleas, 1825. No- 
tice was immediately given to the owners, as well 
as to the town -treasurer and others concerned, to 
appear before the Court, pursuant to the provisions 
of the charter. The appraisers were appointed 
and commisioned; and, for the superintendence of 
the supposed interest ot the tow n, a special town- 
meeting was called on the 2d of February, 1826. 
At this town-meeting a committee was appointed, 
who were clothed with discretionary powers to 
make any contract with the canah corporation, for 
remuneration, for damages sustained, or to release 
all damages at their discretion ; and their acts, in 
the language of the vote, were to be " conclusive 
and valid." The committee elected to make a 
claim for damages, and they did so before ap- 



23 

praisers. They afterwards made a report of their 
doings to the town, and their report was accepted 
and the committee discharged. The appraisers 
awarded that the town had sustained no damage. 

Now, I ask, what more the town can do or ex- 
pect? They selected their own mode of proce- 
dure ; pursued it to the end, and accepted the re- 
port of their committee : or, in other words, delib- 
erately sanctioned Avhat their committee had done. 
But should it be said that the location was an ille- 
gal one, let me ask if they are not noiv too late to 
make that enquiry? They have once submitted 
to the provisions of the charter, and have, there- 
fore, waived their right to make this enquiry. — 
Suppose, for the sake of simple illustration, the 
appraisers had awarded the town one thousand dol- 
lars, and the town had received that sum from the 
canal company ; how then would their case have 
appeared 7 Would they not then have been pre- 
cluded ? I ask, after they had once been paid, and 
that, too, by their own election, who would, nay 
who could suppose they could be entitled to a sec- 
ond payment, whether the location were legal or 
not? Now I ask whether the legal effect of the 
award of the appraisers, under the provisions of 
the charter, is not the same as if they had awarded 
a specific sum ? The appraisers were authorized, 
under the provisions of the charter, to award such 
damages as they thought proper above the " bene- 
fits" received ; but it seems they awarded, that, in 
this instance, the benefits to be received, in conse- 
quence of the canal, were paramount, or overbal- 
anced the damages sustained by the town in conse- 
quence of the destruction of the mill. The town, 
therefore, have been paid, legally paid — as much 
so as if they had received a specific sum. But if 
they were dissatisfied with this payment, why not 



24 

pursue their remedy ? Why discharge their com- 
mittee? Why not order an appeal? 

But aside from all thiai, the grossest injustice 
would now be done if the town could sustain an ac- 
tion against the proprietors. Let it be remember- 
ed, by the town's interfering the mill proprietors 
got nothing but nominal damage for themselves — 
(Mr. Greene is mistaken on this point) — and the 
reason why they received nothing, was principally 
predicated upon tlie supposition of the extinction 
of the town's claim. The appraisers supposed the 
town had a claim, but. supposed that claim extin- 
guished by the location ; and hence, the residue of 
the estate of the mill owners, unincumbered, 
equal to the whole encumbered with it. 

If the town had not interfered, but had permit- 
ted the mill owners to have gotten all the damage 
they were able, there would then, perhaps, have 
been more justice in calling upon these owners for 
their portion of those damages, at least so far as 
they could have been able to have made it appear 
the}^ had an interest in the mill. But they inter- 
fered, and the consequence was, they not only got 
nothing themselves, but they prevented the mill 
owners from getting any thing. And I asl^, what 
kind of justice, I put it to the conscience of every 
honest freeman, must that be, which would seek 
damage from these mill owners now? I ask any 
one to be so good as to point out the difference be- 
tween such Si course of conduct, and the oppressive 
course of that King, who, of old, required a portion 
of his subjects to make brick without allowing them 
straw. The town have deprived these mill pro- 
prietors of the means of making payment, and now 
they seek to obtain payment from them from a 
source where it is not to be had, unless unjustly 
extorted, and from sources to which the town 



25 

never pretended to have any claim? What more 
correct inference, I repeat it, can a conscience, lov- 
ing justice and equity draw from such a course of 
conduct in the premises? 

It will be observed, that the preceding remarks 
are made with reference to the supposition that 
the removal of the mill was an illegal act. I will 
now view the right of the town upon the supposi- 
tion that the removal was legal. Upon the ques- 
tion, however, whether the location and removal 
were legal or not, I give no opinion. It is not ne- 
cessary. Whether legal or not, the town have 
concluded, themselves. In support of the legality 
of the location it might be urged, however, that the 
charter of 1823 gives the company power to locate 
the canal in any place they may think " most con- 
venient for said company." This location was made 
under this authoi-ity, and all the further prcc^ed- 
ings before-mentioned had. In this charter there 
is no restricting power, and, of course, nothing but 
damages could [)e recovered. It would seem, there- 
fore, that mills, as well as any thing else, were lia- 
ble to removal ; and, if so, it might seem difficult 
to escape the conclusion, that the location and re- 
moval of this mill was a legal act. What, then, 
becomes of the proprietors' right to the mill? It 
is taken away — and if their right is taken away, 
let the freemen ask themselves the simple ques- 
tion, whether the town's right is not taken away, 
also? 

But the charter, as amended in January, 1826, 
says Mr. Greene, makes provision for the security 
of mills; but it ought to be obsi^rved, that the lo- 
cation and subsequent proceedings were had under 
the Jirst charter. It is a question, therefore, to be 
determined, how far the provisions of the amended 
charter can have any retrospective effect, on pro 



26 

ceedings already had ; or how far it can control the 
powers given to the corporation by the first char- 
ter. This is a question, and a nice one too, which 
may hereafter puzzle legal wit, should a case arise 
in which it might be necessary to go into its inves- 
tigation. But it is a question with which the town 
of Providence have nothing to do in the present 
case. They have made their election, through 
their committee, to demand payment for the inju- 
ry sustained, and the accepted report of their com- 
mittee is as good to the canal corporation, as a re- 
ceipt in full of a specific sum. 

Suppose the town's committee had elected to 
have sold and quitclaimed all their right, title and 
interest in the grist-mill to the canal company, for 
a specific sum, and had actually received it. Could 
the town have had their money and grist-mill too? 
And pray, what is the diffei^nce between such a 
case and the present? The town have accepted 
of the damages awarded them. What else are they 
entitled to ? It is true they had no money, nor had 
Mrs. Howell, but they received the same kind of 
paj-ment which she and a hundred others have 
been obliged to receive and put up with, to wit, 
" benefits" resulting from the canal — a legal pay- 
ment under the charter, however doubtful in the 
event. 

But I am not disposed to pursue this subject any 
further; it does appear to me to be too plain for 
argument. Indeed, were I before a tribunal ot' 
justice, where bright and unclouded intellect di- 
rected its decisions, I should feel constrained to 
apologise for urging many points I have done in 
the preceding remarks, which are too well settled 
to be disturbed. But the su!)ject is of too much 
importance to let pass unnoticed. The town have 
been urged to a prosecution of their claim — na} , 



37 

almost goaded into a law suit, to obtain what one of 
their own counsel has advised them does not be- 
long to them. And from whom? From an an- 
tagonist as powerful as themselves? No — from a 
widow ! who is struggling to defend tht inheritance 
of her fathers; and who, in this struggle, must 
not only bear her own expenses, but her relative 
proportion of that of her antagonist. In such a 
struggle, defeat is death, and victory but little bet- 
ter; for, whether successful or not, the inheri- 
tance must be frittered away to bear the expense 
of both parties. 

BENJ. COWELL. 
Oct 31, 1829. 



ANCIENT DOCUMENTS. 



At our Monthly Court Meeting, as also being warned according to order, 
the 1st of the 1st month, 1646 So called, it was agreed that John Smith shall 
have the valley wherein his house stands, in case he set up a mill, as also ex- 
cepting sufficient highways 

Copied the 4th January, 1067, pr Shadrach Manton, Town-Clerk. Regis- 
tered pr Richard Ward, Recorder. 

The above is a true copy, made and taken from the 54th page of the Book 
of Land Evidences, No 4, in the Secretary's Office. Witness, Henry Ward, 
Sec'ry 

Articles of Agreement made and concludod upon ye day of , A. 

D. 1649, between the inhabitants of the town of Providence, in the Narragan- 
sett Bay, in New-England, on the one part, and Alice Smith, widow, and 
John Smith, her son, administrators unto the estate of John Smith, miller, of 
the said Plantation, late deceased, on the other part, viz. : 

Whereas the ahovesaid deceased, of late in his livelihood, at his proper 
cost and charge, with the free grant and liberty of saiil town, built a water 
mill in the said Plantation, upon the river commonly called Moshausuck, for 
grinding the said inhabitants' corn, whereby he misht comfortably enjoy the 
profits iif his charge and labor, and the said town the use and benefit of said 
mill. 

Now whereas the said Alice and John Smith, being lawful administrators 
unto the estate of the deceased, we, the said town, together with the said Al- 
ice and John Smith, do mutually agree and covenant concern'ng said mill, as 
followeth — 1. First. The said town, for themselves and their survivors, do 
agree and covenant, that the said Alice and John Smith, their heirs, execu- 
tors, administrators or assigns, shall have, hold, possess aisd enjoy the said 
mill, with its rights and privilege-i^, for their proper use and benefit. 2. Sec- 
ondly. That the water course of the said river shall not be stopjied by us or 
our survivors, whereby the said mill shall in any way be molested in its con- 
stant course and proceedings 3 Thirdly That the sixteenth part of every 
bushel (with allowance for waste, according to the custom of the country^ to 
be allowed for iirinding 4. Fourthly That no corn mill shall be built with- 
in the boundaries or limits of the said plantation, to be authorized or allowed 
by us or our survivors to take loll, so long as the said Alice and John Smith, 
their heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, shall be able to maintain and 
uphold said mill — useful and sufficient at all sea.sonable times, (common acci- 
dents and casualties excepted,j for the grinding of all the corn that shall be 
needful for the inhabitants of the said plantation. 5. Fifthly. We, the said 
town, for ourselves and our survivois, do hereby give, grant and confirm, for 
the proper use. properly for the maintaining of the said mill, unto the said 
Alice and John Smith, their heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, that 
quantity of land that was formerly granted unto the aforesaid John Smith, de- 
ceased, as viz — One hundred and fifty acres, whereof fifteen acres meadow 
ground, with common proportionable. 6. Lastly. In consideration of the 
premises, we, the said Alice and John Smith, for our heirs, executors, ad- 
ministrators or assigns, do airree and covenant with the said town and their 
survivors, to maintain and uphold the said aiill, serviceable and useful, suffi- 



29 

ciently and timely to -srind the corn of the inhabitants of said town, according 
to the custom of other mills — and unto ail and singular the said premises, we 
do hereby interchangeably put otn' hands thedaj" and year above written. 

Copied this 4th day of January, 1667, pr Shadracli Manton, Town-Clerk. — 
Rejfistered pr Richard Ward, Recorder. 

The preceding is a true copy, made from the 53d and 54th pages of the 
Book of Land Evidences, No. 4, in the Secretary's office. Witness, Henry 
Ward, Sec'ry. 

Recorded from Mr. Secretary Ward's copies, this eighth day of Sept. A. D. 
1786, pr Theodore Foster, Town-Clerk. 

Page 145 of the transcribed records, inth of 3d month, 1649. Upon the re- 
turn of an answer from the widow Smith, it is ordered, that Robert Williams, 
Thomas Joanes, Hugh Bewit and Gregory Dexter, shall once more assay to 
make agreement with the snid widow Smith, about former or latter notices 
and propositions about the mill, and to prepare an ansvr er by the next Court. 

Pagfi 144. The thiid of ninth month. 1649 Thomas Olney is chosen mod- 
erator of thfs assembly. Agreed, that every 2d and 5ili day of the week shall 
be grinding the corn of the town. 

Page 140. 28th of 8th month, 1650. Thomas Olney and Gregory Dexter 
are chosen by the town to airrce with two other men, that widow Smith and 
John Smith, her son, shall choose, touching the highway in the vallej, and 
other articles of agreement about the land and mill. 

Page 136. 27th of 11th month, "51. Ordered, that John Smith, the miller, 
shall have a six acre lot, which was William Barrows', by new Bridge, upon 
the mill account. 

Page 143. The 6th of 3(1 month, 1650. Ordered, tliat Hugh Bewit shall 
issue the matter touching the Indians" demand for corn, and to cipitulatc 
with widow Smith about it, and see what she will give for her part, and what 
he pays to the Indians the town will pay to him. 



ANCIENT GRANT. 

At a town-meeting the 24th of May, 1673. Arthur Fenner, Moderator. — 
At which iiieeting a return of man v of the 50 or 60 acres shares in the new 
division were brought to be recorded. The meeting is dissolved. The return 
of which lands here follow, according as they were brought ; Arthur Fenner 
being chosen to lay them out by the town unto the inhabitants of the said town. 

Laid out unto John Smith, Sen. about the year 1647, ten acres, more or 
less, at or about the place where the mill now standeth ; six acres more or 
less of meadow, lying at the upper end of that which is called the great mead- 
ow, on the southwestard side of the river called Moshawsuck ; six acres of 
meadow at the plac« conmionly called Wainscote meadow, lying and being 
part of it on tiie south side, and part of it on the north side of the river. These 
parcels of land being laid out by Chad Browne, thin Surveyor of the town of 
Providence, being in part of what was granted to him, as he was a purchaser, 
and ibr building a mill, as witness do testify. 

Laid out unto John Smith, Jun son of the abovesaid John Smith, by the 
surveyors of the town of Providence. Arthur Fenner and Thamas Harris, six 
acres upon the neck, bounding southward with the land of John Jones and 
Shadrach Manton, on the northwesterly with a stompe, on the southesterly 
with a walnut tree ; six acres more or less at the place commonly called New 
Bridge, nn West river, bounded on the north with a six acre lot, which for- 
merly was Joshua Winnsor's: on the south with the coman ; on the west 



30 

witli the coman ; on tlic est with the ooman, at the place commonly called 
Wninscolt field ; and tliereabouts an hundred and fifty acre?, more or less, 
laid ont by the eiy-hteen fotte polle; bounded southesteriy with a tree marked 
on two sides ; southwesterly with a chesriut tree ; bounded on the northwest- 
er!)' and northcsterly with tlie land of John Brown, one acor, liing and beinij 
tip the west rivfer, being part of a share of nieddow or low land, which was 
laid down by Robert Peck, ail which parcels of land bein^ part of what was 
p:ranted by the town of Providence unto John Smith, Sen. and his sonne John 
Smith, both of them received purchasers in the town of Providence. 

We, the men of Providence and purchasers of the said town of Providence^ 
do own and acknowleg that all thes above mentioned panties of land to be 
the true and lawful ri jht of John Smith and his heirs, forever, with ail appur- 
tenances and comnioities thereunto. To have and to hold without let, hin- 
drance or inollestation 

Voted and ordered to be enfeied in the town records. Enrolled the 8th 
May, 1673, pr me, J«hn Smith, Clerk of the town of Piovidence. 

Providence, Oct. 3, li29 — The above and foregoing is a copy from an old 
Book of Records of the town of Providence, irom page 127 and part from 
page 128. Witness, Nathan VV Jackson, lown Clerk. 

At a Town-Meeting lieM by adjournment, on Thursday, the 20th of Sep- 
tember, 1764. Mr. Ephratm Bowen, moderator. Mr. Elisha Brown came 
into Town-Meeting, and engaged to put the mill on Moshawsuck river in 
good repair, and to do his endeavors to save water for the use of said mill, 
and to repair the same as soon as conveniently may be 

Voted, that Daniel Jenckes, Esq. James Angell and George Jackson, be a 
committee to enquire into the custom of the toll that is usually taken in the 
colony, and to report to the town ; which quantity of toll, when found, shall 
be the toll to be taken by Mr. Elisha Brown, at his grist-mill, agreeable to 
the original grant of setting up said mill. 

At a Town-Meettng held at Providence, on Saturday, the 10th day of No- 
vember, A. D. 1764. John Cole, moderator. The commtttee appointed to 
settle the toll at Elisha Brown's mill, made their report in the following 
words, to wit : — Agreeable to the within appointment, we have met and ex- 
amined the original grant, &c. and do report, that the said Elisha and John 
Brown shall have the fourteenth part of all the Indian corn ground at their 
mill, and the sixteenth part of rye, and the eighteenth part of wheat, as toll. 

Providence, November 8, 1764. 

N. B. Said Brown is to return 13 14ths of Indian, 1.5 IGths of rye, 17 
18ths of wheat. Daniel Jenckes, ^ 

James Angell, > Committee. 
George Jackson, ) 



At a Town-Meeting, held 20th April, 1785. Whereas it is represented to 
this meeting, that the lower mill in the town of Providence is now out of re- 
pair, and that it is necessary some measures should be adopted by the town 
in order that the design of the original grant of the land for a mill, for the 
benefit of the town, may be duly answered. 

It is, therefore, voted and resolved, that Mr. Samuel Thurber, .Tr. Major 
Charles Keene and Mr. Job Smith, be a committee to enquire on what terms 
the original grant was made, and how the present possessors hold the land 
where the said mill is erected, and to report the same, together with their 
opinion of what is proper to be done by the town respecting the same ; and 
in cape that they shall find it incumbent on the present owners of said mill 
to repair the same, that the committee request them to do it without delay. 

N. B, This committee made no report. 



31 

At a Town-Meeting held August 25th, 1801. Rcs-olved, th;it James Bur- 
rill, Jr. Samuel W. Bridgham and Epliraim Bovven, Jr. be and they iiercby 
are appointed a Committee for the purjuise of inspecting into tiie state of the 
mill, near the mill bridge, so called, and to investigate the tenure by which 
said mill is held by the present proprietors of the same — and that said com- 
mittee make report at tlie next town-meeting. 

There is no report of this committee on record. 

At a Town-Meeting of the freemen of the town of Providence, legally 
warned and assembled at the town-house, on the twenty-eighth day of Au- 
gust, being the last Tuesday in this month, (1821.) John Carlile, Esq. mod- 
erator. Voted, that Moses Brown, Sanntcl Eddy, Samuel VV. Bridgham, 
Thomas Burgess and John Howland be a connnittee to enquire into the right, 
iuterest or concern the town has in the grist-mill and its privileges, situated 
in that part of the town called Charlestown. That they examine all grants 
and contracts respecting the said mill and privileges ; and also that they as- 
certain by what authority those in possession of the premises exact and re- 
ceive more toll for grinding than is custonjary in otiiur mills iu tiie State, and 
make report to the next town-meeting. 

N. B. This committee made a report, signed by three of their number. — 
The committee say, sickness in the family of Mr. Eddy, and the absence of 
Mr. Bridgham from town, prevented their attendance with the committee. 

At a Town-Meeting of the town of Providence, legally warned and assem- 
bled at the town-house, on Thursday, the 2d day of February, A. D. 1820. 

Whereas the Corporation of the Blackstone Canal have surveyed the pro- 
posed route or passage of the canal, so as to cross the site of the grist-mill, in 
which the town have an interest, and also to extend through other lands 
claimed by the town. It is, therefore, voted and resolved, that Philip Allen, 
John Carlile and Benjamin CliHbrd be a committee to confer with the Canal 
Commissioners, or with any other persons appointed, or who may be appoint- 
ed, to appraise the damages sustained by proprietors of land through which 
the said canal may pass ; and to superintend the interests of the town before 
the Commissioners, or before any persons appointed to make appraisal iis 
aforesaid, or before a jury in case the said cortnuittee shall claim an appeal; 
and that they have authority to contract, in behalf of this town, for such re- 
muneration for injury or damage which the town may sustain in the premises, 
or at their discretion to release the same, as to said committee shall appear 
just and reasonable : and any contract, so made by said committee, shall be 
conclusive and valid. A true copy : 

Witness, 5fATH.vN W. Jackson, Town-Clerk. 



At a Town-Meeting of the freemen of the town of Providence, legally 
warned and assembled at the town-house, on Wednesday, the nineteenth day 
of April, A.D.182C. 

The committee, appointed in Fehru.iry last to confer with the Canal Com- 
missioners, or with any persons appointed or may be appointed to appraise 
the damage sustained by proprietors of land through which said canal may 
pass, report, verbally, that they have attended to the duties of their appoint- 
ment, but are not yet ready to make further report. A true copy. 

Nathan W. Jackson, Town-Clerk. 

At a Town-Meeting of the freemen of the town of Providence, holden by 
adjournment, on Saturday, the 10th day of June, A. D. 1826. 

The connnittee, appointbd by the town in Jaimary last, to represent the 
(claims of the town to the Commissioners, appointed by the Court of Common 
Pleas, make report as follows : 

The committee, appointed by the town of Providence in January last, to 



33 

reprosent the claim of f lie town to tlie Commissioners, appointed by the C'ouri 
of CoiniTion Pleas for appraising land over which the Blackstone Canal may 
be laid, respei;tfully report, they have attended to the duties of their appoint- 
ment, and have claimed damages for the injnry the town may receive by the 
removal or destruction of the corn mill, at the,Moshawsuck river, in which 
the town have an interest. 

It appears, by the records of the Court of Common Pleas, the committee, 
appointed by said Court, do not consider tlie town of Providence will sustain 
any injury by the removal or destruction of the corn mill, and award no dam- 
ages to the town. (Philip Allen, ^ 

John Carhle, > Committee. 
Benj. Clifford, y 

Providence, June 5, 1829. 

And the said report having been read, it is voted and resolved, that the 
same be received and recorded. A true copy : 

Witness, Nathan W. Jackson, Town-Clerk 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



014 110 139 0< 



